Ten Students Evicted With Four Hours Notice

blorg

Saw this on Indymedia. Same story with photos on UCDSU/DITSU sites. I'm just amazed that this can still happen in this day and age.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67525
http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=339
http://www.ditsu.ie/News.cfm/section/details/News_Key/150/aid/4

by DIT SU Press Release / Indymedia Editorial - DIT Students' Union Thursday, Nov 18 2004, 12:52am
info@ditsu.ie address: DIT Students' Union, DIT Rathmines, Dublin 6 phone: 01 4969740

From the Newswire: Ten students were evicted from their house last night, with four hours notice, following a request for their washing machine to be fixed.

The landlord is well known to DIT Students’ Union, and other local Students’ Unions, who were involved in a claim against her just four weeks ago. The students had repeatedly asked for the repairs to be carried out and following a written request, the landlord gave the students less than a day to pack up and leave.

DIT Students’ Union Vice President Sharon Hughes was contacted by 2 of the DIT students and called to the address, where she assisted the students. Students were attempting to pack their belongings while the landlord accused various parties of trespassing and threatened not to return the students' deposits.

All lights in the house were turned off while students were trying to remove their belongings from the premises, with one girl tripping in the blackness. Sharon Hughes called two Gardaí from Whitehall station to the scene. The Gardaí had no comment to make on the legality of any of the landlords actions.

When the housing organisation Threshold was contacted by the students, it advised them that the landlord could be acting illegally. One of the remaining tenants said "I had no problems with any of the students, I would stand by all of them". The students currently study in DIT, DCU and St. Pats College.

A delegation from the Union of Students’ in Ireland made little impact on the situation, with USI President, Ben Archibald, unable to persuade the landlord to reconsider her decision.

The students’ lease was due to run until May 2005. Temporary B&B accommodation and other arrangements were made for all the evicted students by the various Students’ Unions.

Sharon Hughes, DIT Students’ Union Vice President said:
“A situation where 10 students find themselves homeless at the whim of a landlord is totally unacceptable. If I hadn’t witnessed the events of the day, I wouldn’t have believed this kind of thing still happens. The landlord deemed 4 hours notice “reasonable”. Most people would think differently. The only solution seems to take students out of the un-regulated private rented sector.”

Jarlath Molloy, DIT Students’ Union President said:
“These events serve to highlight the continuing problems faced by students trying to secure rented accommodation in Dublin. We call on the Government to expand the Section 50 tax exemption and put more resources into providing purpose built student accommodation."

Sleepy

You have to wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye...

Why didn't the Guardai take more action?

seamus

No landlord can, under any circumstances, evict a tenant with any less than 4 weeks' notice in writing.

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. Otherwise the Gardai and ay "housing officer" would know this and would tell the students to stay put and light some candles.

jd

seamus wrote:

No landlord can, under any circumstances, evict a tenant with any less than 4 weeks' notice in writing.

There has to be more to this than meets the eye. Otherwise the Gardai and ay "housing officer" would know this and would tell the students to stay put and light some candles.

She is claiming they were room lodgers, rather than tenants..

"In relation to the law, this woman is smart. She lives in a granny flat next door and has a connecting door that she can access but the tenants can't, so she claims they have lodgers rights not tenants, we are currently trying to prove our point legally.
"

seamus

jd wrote:

She is claiming they were room lodgers, rather than tenants..

"In relation to the law, this woman is smart. She lives in a granny flat next door and has a connecting door that she can access but the tenants can't, so she claims they have lodgers rights not tenants, we are currently trying to prove our point legally.
"

Aha. That's the missing piece. Anyone know what the legal right of lodgers is?

halenger

seamus wrote:

No landlord can, under any circumstances, evict a tenant with any less than 4 weeks' notice in writing.

Maybe this is reiterating what they said above but tenants without leases don't have anything to fall back on, that I'm aware of.

I've had a number of friends who suffered at the hands of a landlord and the first thing I ask is did they have a lease. The only answer I've ever gotten back is quite simply "no".

I know it's hard to have for college people with the much coming and going but it's a protection of both landlord and tenant. Quite essential in my mind.


When she's referring to them as lodgers does she mean tenants without a lease? (Thus my first line)

halenger

Oh and to follow on. I noticed (as I was looking for it) that they had a lease until May 2005. Surely she doesn't have a leg to stand on if they have a lease?

Then again she could've worded it quite craftily. Hard to say without seeing the lease itself.

seamus

halenger wrote:

Maybe this is reiterating what they said above but tenants without leases don't have anything to fall back on, that I'm aware of.

I've had a number of friends who suffered at the hands of a landlord and the first thing I ask is did they have a lease. The only answer I've ever gotten back is quite simply "no".

The law is the same whether it's a lease tenancy or a periodic tenancy. A landlord must give 4 weeks' notice to quit before he can evict them either way. The only difference with a lease is that a landlord must prove that the tenants have broken the terms of the lease to evict them. For a periodic lease, he can evict them without reason.

When she's referring to them as lodgers does she mean tenants without a lease? (Thus my first line)

Basically put, a tenant is someone who rents a dwelling from a landlord. A lodger is someone who pays the landlord for the priviledge of staying in the landlord's home.

This woman is claiming that because of the setup of the place, these students were lodgers and not tenants. The law for lodging and tenancy is very different, since it's not reasonable for a landlord to have to give someone 4 weeks' notice to get out of their home.
TBH I don't know exactly what the law is for lodgers, if there is any.

ballooba

Lodger means someone who rents a room from you I presume.

halenger

Aaah. Thanks for that seamus. Clears it up for me now. Must remember the 4 weeks notice next time I hear of eviction/etc.

I would still prefer a lease personally. Wouldn't like the chance of being kicked out arbitarily. "My daughter wants to move out. Please leave so she can live here." That sorta thing.

Victor

Hmmmm, only a sheriff is allowed evict someone (you can use reasonable force to remove a trespasser). I imagine lodgers are entitled to notice equal to the period of their tenancy (the frequency at which they pay their rent).

shoegirl

I think Victor is right, however, students who get this at 4 hours notice are not going to know this.

Not the first time I've heard of this sort of thing happening. Landlords tend to victimise students as most don't rent the whole year round. Also, incredibly, the PRTB specifies that student tenancies are not covered.

Seems incredible that a group that are quite vulnerable can simply be ignored, especially when they are generally quite young and easily exploited.

Landlords often use threatening measures to move out problem tenants, especially if there is anti-social behaviour involved. Though I had two friends, a gay couple, who were given a few hours to get out after the landlord found out they were a couple. I have also seen one case where the tenant caused extensive damage to a property and was told by the landlord to get out within 24 hrs or he would involve the police. (I suppose somebody who kicks in 2 doors can hardly expect to be treated to the letter of the law).

boo4842

Ireland needs some serious tenant protection legislation ASAP.

Most civilised countries have laws governing the rights of tenants and landlords. Too mch is left up in the air in Ireland.

When I was in Canada i lived in a student house. I'm not sure if its actually illegal, but i have NEVER heard of any students sharing a room with someone else. First I heard of this practice was in Ireland.

The landlord tried to make us move out after a year because he wanted to do the house up to sell it. In Canada, even though our lease was only for 1 year, the tenant does not have to move unless the landlord needs the house for himself or his immediate family. Then they have to give you 60 days notice. Even if they SELL the house, if the new owners plan on renting it out, the current tenants are legally allowed to stay.

When we said we weren't moving, he changed his story, and said that his daghter was moving in. We knew this was a lie, but we moved and watched the house go up for sale, and sold. We then went to a housing tribunal and got 12 months rent paid for by the landlord, because he acted in bad faith.

In Ireland we would have been on our ass within weeks with no money.

seamus

boo4842 wrote:

Ireland needs some serious tenant protection legislation ASAP.

Most civilised countries have laws governing the rights of tenants and landlords. Too mch is left up in the air in Ireland.

When I was in Canada i lived in a student house. I'm not sure if its actually illegal, but i have NEVER heard of any students sharing a room with someone else. First I heard of this practice was in Ireland.

In fairness, that's a choice, not a bad practice. If someone wants cheaper rent by sharing a room, then that's their problem, it's not a problem of poor legislation.

In Canada, even though our lease was only for 1 year, the tenant does not have to move unless the landlord needs the house for himself or his immediate family. Then they have to give you 60 days notice. Even if they SELL the house, if the new owners plan on renting it out, the current tenants are legally allowed to stay.

To be perfectly honest, that sounds horribly restrictive on landlords. You sign a lease for a property, you should only have the right to stay for the period of the lease. You have a month after the lease expires to move out or renew the lease. I don't see why a landlord should have a reason other than he wants you to move out once the lease has expired.

Just my 2c.